Funda"mental" errors of anti-gun wackjobs.

Time to pick on Caroly McCarthy again, god bless her misinformed little soul...

Lets dissect some key points, and for the slower, not-so-bright out there, who think that guns are the problem, and not the people, I'll try and keep it simple, maybe use some smaller words, etc... well, maybe not. Please try to keep up though.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/rep-mccarthy-intros-bill-to-ban-high-capacity-ammo-clips.html

I know what it’s like to have tragedy brought to your life in a split second by a madman with high-capacity ammunition magazines,”

Emphasis on the madman... so far so good, but then she goes and ruins it by giving life and personality to an inanimate object, the "high-capacity ammunition magazine" (at least she didn't call it a "clip"). It's a piece of metal. These madmen could just as easily have been  hatchet wielding felons, hacking and slicing their way through crowds of unarmed and thus, helpless victims. The problem is not the weapon, it's the wielder.

How gun bans and healthcare bills happen.

First, remember the health care bill, where they needed 60 votes to continue "discussing" the bill (and to block a promised Republican philibuster attempt)? Harry Reid cut a deal with Nebraska Senator, Ben Nelson, giving him the Cornhusker Kickback (aka the Nebraska Compromise), to "allow discussion to continue". Mr. Nelson probably thought if he didn't like the final version, he could vote against it, and they wouldn't have their 60 to pass it, but at least he got a sweet deal for his constituents regardless.

What actually happened? The bill was discussed, other lawmakers removed the cornhusker kickback from the final version, changed the rules so they only needed a simple majority to pass the healthcare bill, the Nebraska Senator voted against it, but rather than it dying from a philibuster before ever proceeding with discussion, it passed with simple majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Compromise

Nelson voted against the reconciliation bill, but as the bill was not subject to a filibuster, it was able to pass without his vote.

Now, consider HR 3355 (103rd Congress, 1993-1994) commonly known as the "Assault Weapon Ban" (passed with the feel good name of "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994").

Someone who gets it!

The following article was an opinion piece by Jeffrey Miron, who, as stated in the article

"is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in the economics department at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Cato Institute."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/15/miron.arizona.free.speech/index.html?hpt=C1

It is simpler to highlight the major points of his article, than to elaborate on each in detail, because his opinions are succinct and to the point. So here goes...

The argument for free speech holds simply that the harms from government restrictions on speech are worse than the harms from free speech itself. If government can determine what constitutes acceptable speech, it will use that power to restrict speech in inappropriate ways.

And so it begins...

So as predicted, those who would take away the rights of the majority to punish the few, those who believe they are elected to protect us from ourselves, and those who don't give two hoots in hell about the Constitution or our rights, are using the tragedy in Arizona to further their political agenda.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html

One of the fiercest gun control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson, Ariz., Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday targeting the high-capacity ammunition clip the gunman used.

Promoting legislation against guns, bullets, and MAGAZINES (not "clip") in the wake of this tragedy, is like trying to pass legislation against cars, tires, and gasoline, following a DUI accident. You might as well blame forks, plates and cooking pans for making obese people fat...

There has also been talk about legislation banning "stockpiling" of ammo. Just what exactly is a "stockpile" anyways?

...and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of the ammunition allegedly used by the 22-year-old assailant.

Further in the article Illinois Representative Mike Quigley states:

“The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute” is a problem, said Quigley. “He had an additional magazine capability. That’s not what a hunter needs. That’s not what someone needs to defend their home. That’s what you use to hunt people.”

I guess three rounds of rifle ammunition for hunting, three shotgun shells for hunting/home defense, and maybe five rounds of .22 ammo for a revolver for home defense. We don't want someone using a larger and more deadly round do we? I imagine it will look something like no caliber over XX size, no more than 10 rounds of any caliber and no more than 30 rounds total, enforced by requiring you to turn in your spent casings to purchase more replacement ammo. Oh, and don't forget the note from the police or game warden declaring how many shots were fired to defend yourself or kill your deer...

These people are shameless. Seize on a tragedy, to take the opportunity to shove more legislation down the throats of the people. It was a tragedy, no one is taking that away from the victims. However, you cross the line yourselves, when you try to punish everyone else for the criminal's wrongdoing. Good intentions, bad government...

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago.

The 2nd Amendment states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Trying to ban certain calibers of ammunition, or the amount, falls under the "shall not be infringed" part. No matter what your good intentions are, you are violating the Constitution. If you can toss aside the parts you don't like, and others can toss aside the parts they don't like, then we soon find ourselves with no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, and "We the People" are now "We the Subjects".

Good intentions, bad government...

Well, the fall-out from yesterday's shooting has already begun.

I definately want to clarify, that the events that transpired were horrific and our condolences go out to all the victims and their families. The monster(s) that did this should get the needle.

That said, some well intentioned individuals in government, are going to jump to some premature conclusions, pass some knee-jerk reaction legislation, and further erode our Constitutional rights, all under the guise of safety, liberty, and all that jazz... Remember, before all these laws start flying around Washington, that Benjamin Franklin said:

Those who would give up essential liberties, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/09/shooting-prompts-legislation-to-protect-lawmakers-officials/

Washington (CNN) - Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pennsylvania, said he will introduce legislation making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.

I wonder who will be charged with the "approved words and symbols list" that we, the loyal subjects to the crown, will be subject to using to express our displeasure with our elected representative government, when they tell us to "go to hell" with their vote. Actions speak louder than words...

So this politician will use this tragedy to his own twisted ends, to further his agenda, so we citizens have no recourse but to beg like the orphan in Charles Dickens classic "Oliver Twist" when he said "Please sir, I want some more".

Gabrielle Giffords, 3 term US Representative - Arizona, shot.

Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat Representative from Arizona to the House of Representatives, was shot in the temple, through and through today, during a town-hall style event in Arizona. Initial reports are that she was revived at the hospital, and was responding to doctors.

Additionally, 11 other citizens were shot, and at least 4 are confirmed dead, including a 9 year old.
Our best wishes and prayers go out to victims, family, and community members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords